Re: Wordless language (WAS: NonVerbal Conlang?)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:37:15 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
wrote:

>Eldin Raigmore wrote:
>[snip]
>> When it comes to writing systems, the question of "what is a word" is
very
>> hard to separate from the question "where do I have to put the white
>> space"?  In early writing the answer seems to have been "between the end
of
>> one sentence and the beginning of the next",
>
>No - various forms of interpuncts are in fact found in ancient writing.
I didn't know that.

Rephrase my comment with "interpunct" instead of "white space", and I still
think it's true; a spoken language's speakers get more formal and come to a
more widely-accepted and and more precise agreement about what a "word" is
when they begin to use interpuncts in _all_ writing.

>Although ancient Greek inscriptions are generally written without them,
>you can find examples where, for instance, vertical lines are used as
>_word_ separators. Dots are certainly used in some Latin inscriptions
>(in some syllables have dots between them!). IIRC double dots were used
>as interpuncts in Etruscan texts and single dots in Osco-Umbrian texts.
>
>The Phaistos Disk (17th cent BCE?), if indeed the symbols are writing
>(which most people think they are, tho some question this), most clearly
>has interpuncts.
I didn't know that.  Thanks for the information.

>> so as far as the writing
>> system was concerned, a "word" was a sentence.
>
>AFAIK writing systems without interpuncts do not mark mark sentence
>boundaries any more than they mark word boundaries.
That seems likely.

>> In Sanskrit, ISTR having
>> read (IIRC), the "white space" was put after each sigma or [s]-grapheme;
>> take a look at "the Lord's Prayer" as translated into Sanskrit.
>
>Sanskrit is a special case, in that it is the deliberate work of Panini
>to codify the 'pure' language so Hindu scriptures could be _read_
>properly. It was concerned with the spoken form; this sandhi, which is a
>feature of spoken language but often not reflected in written language,
>is shown in Sanskrit. In deciding where word breaks should appear, it is
>the phonological word that is important, not the grammatical word.
That fits with and fills out what I've heard before.  Thanks.

>[snip]
>> It does seem that most examples thread-responders have posted that we
>> mostly accept as "languages without words" are not the mouth-to-ear
>> phonological kind of language most natlangs are.
>
>Surely all natlangs are either or were once "mouth-to-ear phonological
>kind of language"?
I was allowing for the possibility that at least one of Ameslan, BSL,
and/or Nicaraguan Sign Language counts as a natlang.

>Such languages are sequences of phones, i.e. 'strings
>of phones',
Do Sign Languages constist of phones?
Are Sign Languages natlangs?

>then they must, as I see it, contain elements that are
>'words' ("a string that is a member of a language" [Trask]).
I imagine Sign Languages do in fact consist of words in this sense.

>
>If such a beast as a wordless language is possible it cannot be IMO a
>"mouth-to-ear phonological kind of language"
>
>[Replying to me]
>>>>FWIW, I think it's worth putting aside the question about whether
>>>>particles are "real words" or not, unless we're to talk about a
>>>>language that would somehow be entirely composed thereof. (What would
>>>>it be like?)
>>
>> Are you saying And Rosta's conlang is _not_ worth considering in this
>> thread -- at least not yet?
>I am very puzzled by this question. AFAIK And has not yet given a
>comprehensive description of Livagian, but there is an example given on:
>http://www.valdyas.org/irina/relay5/livagian.html
>
>This is clearly not all particles in the sense I was using the term.
>gghoekhg = 'is foul' and gkhnqehr = 'originates at' look like lexical
>items to me.
I may have meant Jonathan Knibb's or Simon Clarkstone's conlang.  In fact I
have not been able to track down the specific conlang I meant.  It came up
in a discussion the four of us, with perhaps others, had (i.e. me, And,
Jonathon, and Simon, and possibly others).  Maybe And remembers which one I
meant?  (Probably I'll just have to keep looking and post about it later.)

>What do you mean by 'particle'? (Another ill-defined word) Do you simply
>mean 'bound morphemes'?
I don't have an answer yet.

>I note that Trask in fact gives three meanings of 'particle':
>1."Traditionally, any lexical item which exhibits no inflectional
>morphology and hence is invariable in form; the term is used only in
>connection with languages in which the open classes Noun, Verb and
>Adjective do inflect."
>2. "In the grammar of English, one of the preposition-like items which
>occur in *phrasal verbs*, such as..........."
>3. "A label typically applied to some more-or-less well-defined class of
>uninflected words in the grammar of some particular language when no
>more obvious label presents itself."
>
>Clearly meaning (2) is irrelevant here, as it is English-specific and it
>just would not be sensible to ask the question: "What would a language
>consisting only of particles be like?"
>
>Nor does the question make sense with meaning (1), as that has meaning
>_only_ if a language also has flectional elements, i.e. by definition
>such 'particles' cannot be the only elements in the language.
>
>That leaves only meaning (3). If Livagian consists only of particles it
>means that Livagian has only one part of speech and, as no obvious label
>can be attached to this part of speech, then the term 'particle' is
>given it. It may be that And has actually said this; but I have no
>recollection of his doing so. However, I have no doubt And himself can
>tell us    :)
The conlang I meant to mention -- not And's apparently -- had just
two "parts of speech" -- "linkers" (a small closed class) and content-
morphemes.

The syntax is the same as the morphotactics; the morphotactics is the same
as the syntax; in this conlang there is no difference between morphotactics
and syntax.

The content-morphemes include many whose semantics would strike a speaker
of a natlang as "particles".

>But I am at fault, I guess, in seeking to define 'particle' in this
>context. In all three of Trask's definitions "particle" is a word,
>therefore it does not make sense to question whether particles are
>words. However, it was being questioned; therefore I assumed what was
>meant was that category known as: empty words/ grammatical words/
>function words/ form words. It seems clear to me from the example of
>Livagian referred to above than it does not consists solely of such words.
>
>>>As far as I can see, it would convey no meaning. If we have particles
>>>only, there are no lexical words.
>>
>> AIUI that applies to And Rosta's conlang.
>Not AIUI - see above.
>
>(Of course we should ask him.)
>Indeed.
>
>[snip]
>
>> I don't think And Rosta's conlang is actually "unsatisfactory".
>
>No one has said it is "unsatisfactory".
No, you said a certain kind of language without words would be
unsatisfactory.  I was saying, if And's language is an example of that kind
of language, it is nevertheless not unsatisfactory.  This remark no longer
has any force, since And's language is not an example of that kind of
language.

They're closing the library and I have to leave and I have not finished
replying.  Sorry.

Replies